If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AMD; Down On It's Luck Again
A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
skullduggery: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365 And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD. RM |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel skullduggery: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365 And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD. RM And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel. del cecchi. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 Jun 2005 14:23:29 -0700, wrote:
A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel skullduggery: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365 And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD. Hmph - same old FUD... more holes than a sieve. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel skullduggery: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365 And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD. And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel. I'm not sure what you think I believe. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Intel expressed its unhappiness to IBM, to HP, and to Sun for their building servers around AMD chips, and, as you suggest, I'd be amazed if IBM, HP, and Sun didn't use the fact that they are negotiating with AMD as leverage with Intel. That's just business. If you're suggesting further that Intel first sweeps the room for listening devices and then works out some kind of anticompetitive arrangement, it could be happening, but, contrary to what some here believe, it doesn't have to be happening to explain Intel's continuing market dominance. It's relatively easy to see why server OEM's are building around AMD chips. It's relatively easy to see why an OEM targeting game players would build around AMD chips. For anybody else, it's a much tougher proposition because AMD just can't provide the one-stop shopping and the volume that Intel can. And the reason AMD can't do those things has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with investment capital. RM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:44:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote: wrote: A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel skullduggery: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365 And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD. Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can compare notes. :-) "The forums"? Does that include comp.sys.intel? At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm), probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets. I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips? That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD. The Apple-Intel deal tells the story, and a post in the comp.arch thread about the Apple-Intel deal summarizes the problem nicely: one processor just isn't enough. You need a whole family of processors and chipsets tweaked to fit into lots of market segments. AMD *still* doesn't have a presence in the notebook market, AFAIK. AMD was probably interviewed, they probably said they were working on it, and Apple said, "Yeah, right." The benefit of huge volume is that can make all those different tweaks and flavors. It just didn't make economic sense for IBM to try to fulfull Apple's wish list. The volume was too small. It might make sense for AMD to try, but their promises apparently aren't credible. Intel's promises aren't always credible either, but when Intel fails to deliver, you're no worse off than everybody else, and Intel will eventually deliver something. RM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ed wrote:
Intel has a lot more to offer then just a CPU, which is about all Apple would get from AMD. The Intel TV ad jingle alone is worth a few million units. Exactly, they offer music too. Might be the deciding factor in choosing iTunes over someone else, whether they offer the Intel jingle for download. :-) Yousuf Khan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Myers" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel skullduggery: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365 And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD. And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel. I'm not sure what you think I believe. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Intel expressed its unhappiness to IBM, to HP, and to Sun for their building servers around AMD chips, and, as you suggest, I'd be amazed if IBM, HP, and Sun didn't use the fact that they are negotiating with AMD as leverage with Intel. That's just business. If you're suggesting further that Intel first sweeps the room for listening devices and then works out some kind of anticompetitive arrangement, it could be happening, but, contrary to what some here believe, it doesn't have to be happening to explain Intel's continuing market dominance. It's relatively easy to see why server OEM's are building around AMD chips. It's relatively easy to see why an OEM targeting game players would build around AMD chips. For anybody else, it's a much tougher proposition because AMD just can't provide the one-stop shopping and the volume that Intel can. And the reason AMD can't do those things has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with investment capital. RM I was referring to the thesis of the article at the above link. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can compare notes. :-) "The forums"? Does that include comp.sys.intel? You'll have to ask Gundeep, he's the one that brought it up. :-) The Apple-Intel deal tells the story, and a post in the comp.arch thread about the Apple-Intel deal summarizes the problem nicely: one processor just isn't enough. You need a whole family of processors and chipsets tweaked to fit into lots of market segments. AMD *still* doesn't have a presence in the notebook market, AFAIK. AMD was probably interviewed, they probably said they were working on it, and Apple said, "Yeah, right." Well, what happens when you offer all of that and still nobody picks up your product? You just have to look back at AMD's early Opteron experience. It engineered a complete barebones server platform (through Newisys), and manufacturers were still balking until their customers forced them to accept it (IBM, for example was forced to accept it by a group of its Japanese customers looking to buy a supercomputer). AMD actually went beyond just offering an accompanying chipset, it offered the whole platform to manufacturers, all they would have to do is add hard disks and a logo. Now the ball has gotten going, but it took a while for it get started rolling. Well, the Turion platforms are coming out now. By the time Apple is ready to offer its first x86 machine (in one year), that platform will already be mature and probably already on its second or third generation. It's not as if Apple would be manufacturing its own laptops anyways, those are always done by the Taiwanese laptop houses. One company in particular comes to mind which is offering AMD64 laptops, which is Acer; Acer produces probably five times as many systems as Apple, it's now the second or third largest laptop brand in the world. And it's seen fit to produce Athlon 64, Sempron, and Turion laptops. Of course, AMD was in a rare power position with respect to Acer: it sponsors the Ferrari F1 team, and Acer wanted to produce Ferrari-logo'ed laptops, it's only choice was to do it with AMD processors. When AMD forces them to try its processors, they usually tend become loyal. But the fact that AMD has to force these manufacturers to use its processors is highly suspicious. The benefit of huge volume is that can make all those different tweaks and flavors. It just didn't make economic sense for IBM to try to fulfull Apple's wish list. The volume was too small. It might make sense for AMD to try, but their promises apparently aren't credible. Intel's promises aren't always credible either, but when Intel fails to deliver, you're no worse off than everybody else, and Intel will eventually deliver something. As I said, Apple is not even expecting to introduce anything until one or two years out. AMD's credibility has been a lot more than Intel's in the past three years. But it's not really the manufacturing or platform credibility that matters here, it's the advertising credibility. Apple can now advertise its Macs on TV for cheap. Yousuf Khan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Del Cecchi wrote:
"Robert Myers" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel skullduggery: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365 And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD. And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel. I was referring to the thesis of the article at the above link. If by the thesis of the article you mean that AMD supposedly can't supply the volume, I agree that, as worded, the thesis is unsupportable. Maybe I'm giving the guy too much slack (After all, his conclusion agrees with mine. Don't we all give more slack to people who agree with us?). It's like Yousuf haggling about whether AMD will have a notebook chip or not. The answer is oh, probably, and that's the same as the answer as to whether AMD can meet volume demand. No one is going to test the thesis, especially not Apple, which has experienced delivery problems with, um, a different supplier. Intel doesn't always deliver, either, but if Intel's not making deliveries, almost everybody else is in the same boat, and you're not losing out. The high volume supplier has the advantage. I don't understand why this is even controversial. RM |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ESD vs. just blind luck | rile | General Hardware | 3 | August 3rd 04 04:31 PM |
Bad luck with water cooler pumps. | YanquiDawg | Overclocking | 7 | July 14th 04 02:51 AM |
Me and my bad luck.. What can I do??????? | Carlos Arruda | Homebuilt PC's | 6 | July 8th 04 05:08 PM |
Anyone had luck with Asus K8V Deluxe & Radeon 9800XT | f00ge | Asus Motherboards | 0 | December 7th 03 03:34 AM |
Ancient history ? P5A and K6/2/III (+) chips any luck ? | R. Asby Dragon | Asus Motherboards | 4 | November 6th 03 12:54 AM |